Graduate What are the equality conditions for proving strict convexity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 428835
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convex Function
Click For Summary
Strict convexity is discussed in the context of norms, with L1 and L∞ norms identified as not strictly convex, while L2 is. The discussion highlights that Lp norms exhibit symmetry, homogeneity, and the triangle inequality, which leads to the definition of convexity. The focus is on proving strict convexity, particularly through the equality conditions in the triangle inequality. The conversation suggests using counterexamples for L1 and L∞ to explore strictness and re-evaluate the equality conditions of Cauchy-Schwarz. Understanding these principles is crucial for establishing the strict convexity of functions.
member 428835
Hi PF!

Do you know what a strictly convex function is? I understand this notion in the concept of norms, where in the plane I've sketched the ##L_1,L_2,L_\infty## norms, where clearly ##L_1,L_\infty## are not strictly convex and ##L_2## is. Intuitively it would make sense that any ##L_1,L_\infty## function is not strictly convex (similar to it's norm) and ##L_2## functions are, but how would you even show this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lp norms have 3 things
(1.) symmetry
(2.) homogeneity with respect to scaling by positive numbers -- consider in particular ## p \in (0,1)##
(3.) triangle inequality (or sub additivity)

if you carefully apply (2.) and (3.) you recover a definition of convexity. As far as strictness of the convexity, what do you know about the proof behind (3.), and in particular the equality conditions underlying it? The typical way is via Hoelder, but there are clever other ways. A more pedestrian approach for this particular problem is to come up with counterexamples on strictness for ##L_1## and ##L_\infty## and re-examine the equality conditions of Cauchy-Schwarz.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K